Sir Robert Fellows is married to Diana’s sister, Lady Jane, I find it difficult to believe that he would be complicit in her murder.

edit on 6-1-2013 by OtherSideOfTheCoin because: (no reason given)

Maybe his job depended upon it? He was, after all, VERY loyal, by all accounts. Anyway, who says he knew what his orders entailed? Perhaps he was just
a pawn in something he discovered only later and now has to keep secret.

Originally posted by boymonkey74
Guys you really think it is abnormal to have SIS officers in the closest capital city to us? Heck I would be surprised If we didn't have SIS officers
in every capital city in Europe even the world.

You miss the crucial point. The two SIS officers arrived in Paris a FEWS DAYS BEFORE DIANA DIED. Now, either that is just a coincidence or else it was
part of the conspiracy. I have proof that the crash was the result of a conspiracy, and so I believe that it was part of the preparations for what
happened.

Well it’s obvious that there were SIS officers present in Paris that night,

Why is it obvious that MI6 (SIS) agents were in Paris?

You see, the difference between you and I is that I have read the official story of Diana and Dodi's death and investigated the allegations made by
Mohamed al Fayed and formed my opinions accordingly. You appear to be singularly dedicated to attacking Mohamed al Fayed's claims and me by
extension.

I also know of how the security services behave in the UK because I am aware what they did to the striking minors under Thatcher, what they did to the
Republicans, how they tormented the Greenham Common women of consciences (many have died from very strange cancers), what they the are doing to
ordinary Muslims and their gangstalking activities to drive innocent Somalis into despair. All this can be googled on the internet.

One of my contentions however is that the OP has not explained the significant of this and furthermore it does not prove that SIS had any role in
assassinating Diana.

You however make no arguments and simply manufacture claims from an appeal to authority - you. Everybody knows what MI5 and MI6 are, yet you turn up
banding about the term SIS in you inimically obscurantist manner.

The article on this thread is about MI6 and I discuss it accordingly.

However your argument goes thusly:

>>>OP does not know that SIS is a collective term for MI5, MI6 therefore the OP cannot comprehend the article.

>>>The OP admitted he does not know the internal demarcations of the security services so he does not know what he is talking about.

>>>You use fallacy to appeal to authority.

The Bottom Line

By attacking me as you have you are attempting to derail the thread.

The article that started this thread is specifically about MI6 being in Paris on the day Diana died. It is not an invention by me but claims made by
Russians. Attacking my credibility is not going to help you or your "contentions".

My opinions are my own and I have as much right as any other commenter on this thread to make them. You will have to come to terms with this and
redirect your focus onto to the article on this thread.

My opinions are based on my life experiences, living through the Thatcher era, the War on Terrorism, books and news articles I have read, my
education, etc. it is not oriented around the SIS issue you are peddling.

You miss the crucial point. The two SIS officers arrived in Paris a FEWS DAYS BEFORE DIANA DIED. Now, either that is just a coincidence or else it was
part of the conspiracy. I have proof that the crash was the result of a conspiracy, and so I believe that it was part of the preparations for what
happened.

I watched the video and it looks to me fiat uno is a very small unstable car car to cause
thr merc to wobble and crash

You miss the crucial point. The two SIS officers arrived in Paris a FEWS DAYS BEFORE DIANA DIED. Now, either that is just a coincidence or else it was
part of the conspiracy. I have proof that the crash was the result of a conspiracy, and so I believe that it was part of the preparations for what
happened.

I watched the video and it looks to me fiat uno is a very small unstable car car to cause
thr merc to wobble and crash

You are a pilot so you have an understanding of momentum, the pivot point on an axis, deflection.

A small car can swerve or flip a larger car by striking the pivot point on the rear or front tyre. Traffic cops use a version of this technique to
stop vehicles.

The danger point is around the axles of the car so you will be aiming at the centre of the tyre of the target vehicle to cause a spin. A smaller car
may in fact be more dexterous at spinning a larger vehicle using this technique since brute force is not needed.

Originally posted by DoorKnobEddie
You are a pilot so you have an understanding of momentum, the pivot point on an axis, deflection.

A small car can swerve or flip a larger car by striking the pivot point on the rear or front tyre. Traffic cops use a version of this technique to
stop vehicles.

The danger point is around the axles of the car so you will be aiming at the centre of the tyre of the target vehicle to cause a spin. A smaller car
may in fact be more dexterous at spinning a larger vehicle using this technique since brute force is not needed.

Well thats another angle but what about the uno going into a tailspin itself and crashing

Ok very fair comments let’s start form the top please read this very carefully because I think you have misunderstood several points I have made.

Why is it obvious that MI6 (SIS) agents were in Paris?

Now let’s be very clear on something I am not saying that there were not SIS officers in Paris that night, I am not even saying that your source is
wrong to say that three senior SIS officers turned up just before Diana’s death. I agree with you, SIS officers where present that night in Paris.

What I would like to know is why you think this has any significant to Diana’s death?

Please that is the question I am asking you and you are as yet to answer it it.

Everybody knows what MI5 and MI6 are

Well then why are you still getting it wrong, I don’t know if your just skimming over what I have to say but you go on in that post to say this.

However your argument goes thusly:

>>>OP does not know that SIS is a collective term for MI5, MI6 therefore the OP cannot comprehend the article.

Note what I have put in bold, you are now showing that you have clearly misunderstood this very simple point I was raising. You make it sound here as
if you believe that SIS is a collective term for both MI5 and MI6 this is wrong, to be clear you are the one who first said you did not know what SIS
was so I am going to explain it very clearly.

Therefore you are again wrong, SIS is not a “collective term for MI5, MI6” they are two different organisations.

To be clear, when I point out you are wrong about something it’s not a personal attack and it is not derailing the thread. You have created a thread
about SIS being in Paris on the night of Diana’s death so discussing SIS is pertinent to your thread. When you can’t seem to understand the most
basic facts about SIS (such as their name) it does become difficult to have a conversation.

Again, I will ask you,

what significance do you see in SIS being present in Paris on the night Diana died.

If there is anything I have said that you would like me to explain further I will happily oblige all you have to do is ask, my friend

You miss the crucial point. The two SIS officers arrived in Paris a FEWS DAYS BEFORE DIANA DIED. Now, either that is just a coincidence or else it was
part of the conspiracy. I have proof that the crash was the result of a conspiracy, and so I believe that it was part of the preparations for what
happened.

I watched the video and it looks to me fiat uno is a very small unstable car car to cause
thr merc to wobble and crash

That the Fiat Uno was used to CAUSE the Mercedes to swerve is a fallacy and not essential to the argument. One view is that someone was inside it
operating a strobe light that blinded Henri Paul, as the former MI6 agent Richard Tomlinson alleged: news.bbc.co.uk...
The undeniable fact remains (you can see for yourself the video showing the car found by Al-Fayed's private detectives) that plenty of forensic
evidence recovered by the French police, as well as the testimonies of witnesses at the scene, indicate that such a car touched the Mercedes moments
before the latter crashed. It is a non sequitur to claim that it CAUSED the crash, and I do not make this error.

One view is that someone was inside it operating a strobe light that blinded Henri Paul, as the former MI6 agent Richard Tomlinson alleged:

Richard Tomlinson is unreliable, he was sacked by SIS then tried to sue for unfair dismissal so when that didn’t work out he then broke the official
secrets act with his book they sent him to prison and then when he got out fled to Russia and published a book “the big breach” in which he spent
a lot of time bad mouthing his former employer. As well as publishing that particular book he also went and published a list of SIS offers names.

In the book he does discuss this “strobe light plan” it’s been a while since I have read the book but it was a plan he alleges to assassinate
Milosevic, using a strobe light under a plan developed by the SBS for the Increment if my memory serves. SIS does not deny that this plan was
discussed however point out that a number of his allegations made regarding the plan are wrong, for example the target was not Milosevic and in any
case the plan was shelved.

All in all this guy hates his former employer and making accusations implicating them in Diana’s death is only to further his own agenda against his
former employer. Just because he once saw a proposed plan written down in 1992 does not mean that they then used the same method to kill Diana.

One view is that someone was inside it operating a strobe light that blinded Henri Paul, as the former MI6 agent Richard Tomlinson alleged:

Richard Tomlinson is unreliable, he was sacked by SIS then tried to sue for unfair dismissal so when that didn’t work out he then broke the official
secrets act with his book they sent him to prison and then when he got out fled to Russia and published a book “the big breach” in which he spent
a lot of time bad mouthing his former employer. As well as publishing that particular book he also went and published a list of SIS offers names.

In the book he does discuss this “strobe light plan” it’s been a while since I have read the book but it was a plan he alleges to assassinate
Milosevic, using a strobe light under a plan developed by the SBS for the Increment if my memory serves. SIS does not deny that this plan was
discussed however point out that a number of his allegations made regarding the plan are wrong, for example the target was not Milosevic and in any
case the plan was shelved.

All in all this guy hates his former employer and making accusations implicating them in Diana’s death is only to further his own agenda against his
former employer. Just because he once saw a proposed plan written down in 1992 does not mean that they then used the same method to kill Diana.

Of course not. But your suggestion that he INVENTED the idea in the context of Diana's death merely as spite against his former employer is plain
preposterous. A number of witnesses INDEPENDENTLY refer to a bright flash of light an instant before the car crashed. Just how many circumstantial
"coincidences" are you willing to entertain before your complacency is broken and you admit that there are truly suspicious anomalies that the
official story cannot explain? There does exist a case for conspiracy that needs to be answered, despite all the nit-picking denials that satisfy only
either the brain-dead or those in plain denial. Whether Tomlinson's theory is right or not is irrelevant, as is his reliability. It is the huge list
of unexplained anomalies that matter.

Of course not. But your suggestion that he INVENTED the idea in the context of Diana's death merely as spite against his former employer is plain
preposterous. A number of witnesses INDEPENDENTLY refer to a bright flash of light an instant before the car crashed.

Let me tell you something…..

7 members of the paparazzi where arrested at the scene of the crash under suspicion of manslaughter. That is what these bright flashes where, cameras.

And yes is it perfectly logical to say that Tomlinson deliberately connected the strobe light plan to Diana’s death to connect her death to SIS, he
hated his old employer.

I would put the two things together, the Fiat Uno hitting the Mercedes to change the direction the Mercedes was moving in so when the driver was
blinded by the light he didn't have time and couldn't see to correct the direction of the car he was driving.

According to the Unlawful Killing video the driver of the white car shot himself in the head twice before setting fire to his car.
Two shots to the head, don't they call that a double tap or something, the second shot is to make sure the person they shot is dead.

How about your writing to Tomlinson instead of asking just for its rhetorical effect a question you suspect I cannot answer? He said he saw the MI6
documents giving the names of the two agents (see no 4): www.fantompowa.net...

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.